The National Planning Commission (NPC), with technical support from the African Institute for Development Policy (AFIDEP), and the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) are undertaking cost-benefit analysis across a wide range of policy areas with the aim of assisting the Government of Malawi in its prioritization of spending across sectors.
The project, ‘Malawi Priorities’, and its research agenda takes its starting point in the NPC’s existing research agenda, which is structured around the six thematic areas of Sustainable Agriculture, Sustainable Economic Development, Human Capital and Social Development, Sustainable Environment, Demography, Governance, Peace, and Security. The NPC’s research agenda predates the Malawi Priorities project and was developed by the Commission in September 2019 after extensive consultation with academics, think tanks, the private sector, and the government. Consequently, the Commission’s research agenda, prima facie, contains questions of national importance.
How were the prioritized areas chosen?
As a first step, Malawi Priorities drew questions from the NPC research agenda that could be answered using a cost-benefit methodology. Additional research questions were added based on input from NPC, an Academic Advisory Group (AAG) of leading scholars within Malawi, and existing literature, particularly previous cost-benefit analyses conducted by the Copenhagen Consensus Center. This process of identifying research questions for investigation generated a total of 38 potential research questions across all 6 thematic areas.
The outcomes of the Reference Group exercise were used to inform which research questions to prioritize and which interventions to focus on within those 38 potential research questions. The validation process finished in July 2020. Yielding the following technical reports.
Agriculture: Commodity Exchange Reform · Agriculture: Exports · Agriculture: Irrigation · Child Marriage · Disaster Risk Reduction · Early Childhood Education · Family Planning · Fisheries · Food Security · Governance · HIV Treatment and Prevention · Industrialization and Youth Employment · Land Compliance · Land Tilting · Malaria · Maternal and Neonatal Health · National Resource Management · Nutrition · Primary School Education · Transport · Utilities · Water Reliability
How were the solutions chosen?
Each research question was analyzed by a team of NPC and Copenhagen Consensus economists. The aim was to determine both short-term and long-term development priorities for the country, acknowledging that there are insufficient resources to address all of Malawi’s challenges and that maximizing outcomes requires careful, evidence-based consideration of the costs and benefits of all policies. To start the research process, the research team consulted with Malawi experts to identify the main barriers in the context and to get insights into possible solutions. After consulting with these experts, the research team conducted a thorough review of the academic and grey literature to identify or confirm the existing barriers and gaps in the education sector. This also included a review of the evidence base for the performance of interventions that have tried to address these gaps in similar contexts or within Malawi.
The findings of these interviews and the literature reviews were summarized in the research plan, which was used to inform the development of a CBA model. The findings of the research plan and the CBA model are documented in the technical reports published on this website.
Both research teams used a number of criteria to screen and select a subset of interventions to include in the feasibility analysis.
Sector expert priority
The intervention is identified by sector experts as important and relevant to the local context. Experts can provide input through several channels: the Reference Group questionnaire, inferences from the NPC research agenda, the academic advisory group, and during individual interviews. Notably, while child marriage was not included in the NPC’s initial research agenda, it was later added to the agenda due to its recurring emergence in discussions with Secondary Education sector experts and in the Reference Group Questionnaire.
High benefit-cost ratio or cost-effectiveness in similar previous research
The purpose of the Malawi Priorities project is ultimately to identify interventions for which benefits significantly outweigh costs. Based on the economic literature, particularly previous research conducted by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, benefit-cost ratios of above 15 are among the top quintile of BCRs across all interventions. Due consideration is given to contextual differences between previous research and the current situation in Malawi in determining the effect of this criterion.
Addresses a problem of sufficient size
Some interventions can be considered highly effective but only address a small target population or part of a given problem, limiting the overall benefits of the approach. To avoid focusing on solutions that target only small sub-populations, each intervention must have the potential to be scaled and address a problem that is significant.
Significant gap in current levels of intervention coverage
All analyses conducted for Malawi Priorities focus on marginal benefits and costs. Therefore, if an intervention already has high coverage rates, then additional resources provided towards that intervention might have reduced effectiveness or could suffer from the 'small-size' problem.
Availability of crucial data or credible knowledge of impact
Due to time and resource constraints, all analyses conducted by Malawi Priorities are based on secondary data. No primary research, such as field experiments or trials, is conducted. Therefore, each intervention is constrained by the available data. In many cases, one key constraint is the lack of knowledge concerning the impact of a given intervention. It is typical to formally deal with uncertainty via sensitivity analyses. However, in some cases, the uncertainty is so great that it precludes the analysis of the intervention at all.
The following table summarizes the intervention selection process and feasibility analysis of both teams. In total 21 interventions were identified and screened, with six being chosen for further cost-benefit analysis. Most interventions were screened out due to a lack of data.